[Rumour] Canucks getting calls on Conor Garland

[JustABandwagoner]

9 minutes ago, nux_win said:

Unless they are offering a young superstar in return, which they likely aren't, I would hang up on those calls.  He's a keeper.  GCG!

Lets say Carolina calls u up and says here take Seth Jarvis for Garland. I would do that in a heart beat. But that will never happen haha. Other GM's prob looking for a steal 

[mll]

1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Teams like CBJ & Buff are prob interested. They have a hard time finding vets to commit to their market. They also both have a pretty healthy stash of prospects & cap space.

Both teams are in a rebuild.  CBJ and Buffalo themselves are looking for more picks and prospects. 

[flickyoursedin]

Too much value in his contract. I keep him because if in a couple years when his contract is coming closer to an end you’ll probably get the same value teams are trying to give you for him now.

[hammertime]

 

[Outsiders]

So NJ wants him apparently. 

 

What about Dawson Mercer, Kevin Bahl and this years 2nd?

Edited January 30, 2022 by Outsiders

[Provost]

1 hour ago, DontMessMe said:

LMFAOOO. Aka we shouldnt have traded with ARZ in the off season 

Ya… so the solution is to undo the Arizona trade?

 

:D

 

I guess if we can recover a top ten 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick as well… sure I guess…

 

 

[Phil_314]

Hoglander, Podkolzin and Garland are all smallish but skilled, quick and feisty types that teams need to succeed (think similar to TB guys like Palat, Cirelli... etc.), plus as mentioned he's young enough to be part of the next core.  I'd hate to trade someone who's an emotional leader like him, but agreed that for the right return (e.g. young RHD or another young skilled forward on an ELC) I'd consider it.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Kinda funny how the narrative was that our future was bleak, and that we had no prospects. Suddenly we have assets to move that can easily add to the prospect pool.

 

It's really obvious that even though we moved some first round picks that we have retained their value of acquired players.

 

It's almost like the narratives about this team have been politically based, rather than based on reality.

Well we don’t have a good prospect pipeline at all…. So not sure what your argument with that is.

 

Please list the times Benning got value by selling high on assets?  Remember when he traded Virtanen after that hot streak and got a blue chip defencemen back?  When he traded Juolevi away when he had high value from being a high end 1st round pick?  Or how about when he sent out all those expiring rentals for great returns?  Or when he got assets back for Toffoli, Tanev, Markstrom, Stecher,  etc?

 

I don’t think Rutherford is going to “run out of time” on these moves.  Actually realizing a return rather than just watching assets go away for nothing is a pretty BIG difference.  Pretending that it isn’t means you are the one inventing a “politically based” narrative.  

 

To be fair, most of The contracts Benning signed were bad enough from the beginning that trading them for any return wasn’t really an option for him.

[86Viking]

Doesn't make much sense for us to trade a top 6 winger signed for a while at a cap hit under 5m out performing Boeser who is due a 7.5m qualifying offer. Boeser is more available due to that than Garland I would have to imagine. I know we can get Boeser signed for less, but others would say why would he when he has a guaranteed 1 yr 7.5 QO waiting for him come summer time.

[stawns]

10 minutes ago, Provost said:

Well we don’t have a good prospect pipeline at all…. So not sure what your argument with that is.

 

Please list the times Benning got value by selling high on assets?  Remember when he traded Virtanen after that hot streak and got a blue chip defencemen back?  When he traded Juolevi away when he had high value from being a high end 1st round pick?  Or how about when he sent out all those expiring rentals for great returns?  Or when he got assets back for Toffoli, Tanev, Markstrom, Stecher,  etc?

 

I don’t think Rutherford is going to “run out of time” on these moves.  Actually realizing a return rather than just watching assets go away for nothing is a pretty BIG difference.  Pretending that it isn’t means you are the one inventing a “politically based” narrative.  

 

To be fair, most of The contracts Benning signed were bad enough from the beginning that trading them for any return wasn’t really an option for him.

To be fair, players at ages where they would still be a teams best prospects are playing for the big team.  It's not fair to say that there's no pipeline in that context I don't think 

[mll]

4 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Kinda funny how the narrative was that our future was bleak, and that we had no prospects. Suddenly we have assets to move that can easily add to the prospect pool.

 

It's really obvious that even though we moved some first round picks that we have retained their value of acquired players.

 

It's almost like the narratives about this team have been politically based, rather than based on reality.

 

Vancouver was pegged as a bubble team that was poorly constructed.   Rutherford looks to be validating that take - the team isn't constructed to win and have a depleted prospect pool.  Sounds like he's considering selling off some of their better players to try and fix the issues.  

 

If he's comsidering trading a 25 year old Garland signed to a reasonable deal it suggests that he doesn't think they can win now and/or that he can get what he is looking for with some of those older veteran contracts - some might even be unmovable.

 

Given where things look to be heading I would think he would have preferred having them miss the playoffs with Roussel, Beagle, LouiE coming off the books (combined 12M) and Guenther in the system, then also missing the playoffs but having a 31 year old OEL with an NMC for another 5 seasons at 7.2M despite having Garland.  

 

Garland is a 0.65 ppg player in Vancouver and it doesn't feel like he'll be able to bring back the equivalent of 9th overall.  That high draft pick was used in part to also off-load cap in the deal.

 

They are walking a fine line.  After this season Demko has 4 years left, Hughes 5, Pettersson 2+1 to UFA and Horvat is 1 year to UFA.  A player already drafted would have been a few seasons into his development.  Podkolzin is in his draft+3 - ie over 2 years of development have gone by and although there's promise he's not making much of an impact just yet.  Draft today and it could take several years for the player to start making a difference and those key players near free agency.

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by mll

[coryberg]

52 minutes ago, Provost said:

Ya… so the solution is to undo the Arizona trade?

 

:D

 

I guess if we can recover a top ten 1st round pick and a 2nd round pick as well… sure I guess…

 

 

We would have to take back a 12 million dollar 4th line to balance it out.

[Provost]

27 minutes ago, stawns said:

To be fair, players at ages where they would still be a teams best prospects are playing for the big team.  It's not fair to say that there's no pipeline in that context I don't think 

I would buy that if we weren’t a cap team and we had a bunch of teenagers playing on the team.  Most top end picks should be playing by their draft +2 year…. That isn’t remotely unusual.

 

I believe we have zero players from

the 2020 or 2021 draft on our roster, those would be early graduates.  Hoglander and Podkolzin are our young guys at 21 and 20 respectively and most teams have some of those guys on the roster.

 

 

 

 

 

[Provost]

24 minutes ago, coryberg said:

We would have to take back a 12 million dollar 4th line to balance it out.

They would all be off the books by now…

[Junkyard Dog]

If we're looking for cap relief short/long term and want a asset back maybe package Garland/OEL to Boston? Boston had history of wanting OEL and there are recent rumors with them and Garland.

 

Could net us Carlo++++

Edited January 30, 2022 by Junkyard Dog

[coryberg]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

They would all be off the books by now…

They are one the books for the full season. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron.

[Canuck Surfer]

4 hours ago, -DLC- said:

 

This is what happens when teams play well enough to get their coach & GM fired?

 

Sad but true, a near ten game winning streak still has a history that is still humbling in its brutality. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

Basically a sign that we have a lot of good players, we just have to use them properly and we'll be a good team.

 

We're playing at around .700 hockey with Bruce, the easier option would be to just leave everything the way it stands now.

[DeNiro]

4 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Basically a sign that we have a lot of good players, we just have to use them properly and we'll be a good team.

 

We're playing at around .700 hockey with Bruce, the easier option would be to just leave everything the way it stands now.

Agreed.

 

As much as losing tonight sucks their record under him is still really good. Managing our losses while we’re playing poorly is keeping us in the race.

 

If we were to continue the current points pace we would end up with 97 points.

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, mll said:

 

Vancouver was pegged as a bubble team that was poorly constructed.   Rutherford looks to be validating that take - the team isn't constructed to win and have a depleted prospect pool.  Sounds like he's considering selling off some of their better players to try and fix the issues.  

 

If he's comsidering trading a 25 year old Garland signed to a reasonable deal it suggests that he doesn't think they can win now and/or that he can get what he is looking for with some of those older veteran contracts - some might even be unmovable.

 

Given where things look to be heading I would think he would have preferred having them miss the playoffs with Roussel, Beagle, LouiE coming off the books (combined 12M) and Guenther in the system, then also missing the playoffs but having a 31 year old OEL with an NMC for another 5 seasons at 7.2M despite having Garland.  

 

Garland is a 0.65 ppg player in Vancouver and it doesn't feel like he'll be able to bring back the equivalent of 9th overall.  That high draft pick was used in part to also off-load cap in the deal.

 

They are walking a fine line.  After this season Demko has 4 years left, Hughes 5, Pettersson 2+1 to UFA and Horvat is 1 year to UFA.  A player already drafted would have been a few seasons into his development.  Podkolzin is in his draft+3 - ie over 2 years of development have gone by and although there's promise he's not making much of an impact just yet.  Draft today and it could take several years for the player to start making a difference and those key players near free agency.

 

Respectfully, this is not a correct observation. Rutherford's job, like any other GM, is to evaluate and re-evaluate the team. He may not be the GM, but it's obvious that he's still the one calling the shots. There is no 'validating' of anything, given that the team is actually doing a lot better than earlier in the season. The major difference? The removal of a coach that has never (thus far) proven that he is a winning one.

As of right now, Rutherford has done very little to 'fix' this current roster, which begs the question, why are we pretending that Rutherford is the saviour? He has literally done nothing to the roster. He has hired a new GM and an assistant GM, but neither of them have made a single trade yet (nor should they do so right now).

 

It's rather disingenous to state that this roster is "poorly constructed", yet this team is playing a lot better under a competent coach. Yeah, I don't think the roster is as bad as their record is. This hole that they're in right now is due to the numerous losses they took at the beginning of the season.